Trial reportBMC oral health2021
Survival rate of primary molar restorations is not influenced by hand mixed or encapsulated GIC: 24 months RCT.
Trial report in BMC oral health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02274142 (Minimally Invasive Restorations in Primary Molars Using Encapsulated ou Hand-mixed Glass Ionomer Cement), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Minimally Invasive Restorations in Primary Molars Using Encapsulated ou Hand-mixed Glass Ionomer Cement: Clinical Trial With 24 Months of Follow-up
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- 2-year survival and cost analysis of occlusoproximal ART restorations using encapsulated glass ionomer cement in primary molars: a randomized controlled trial.BMC oral health · 2024Trial
- Minimally Invasive Interventions for Childhood Caries: A Scoping Review of Their Applicability in Public Health and Community Settings.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGlass ionomer cements (GIC) have been considered the top option to restore primary teeth by dentists. The most common supply forms are hand mixed and encapsulated GIC. There is a lack of information about the impact of different GIC supply forms on restoration survival.
methodsThis randomized clinical trial compared the survival rate of occlusal and occlusoproximal restorations in primary molars using two glass ionomer cements versions: hand-mixed (H/M) and encapsulated (ENC) after 24 months. Children aged 3-10 years who presented dentin caries lesions in primary molars were selected at School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Brazil. They were randomly assigned to groups: H /M (Fuji IX
resultsA total of 324 restorations were performed in 145 children. The survival for H/M group was 58.2% and 60.1% for ENC, with no difference (p = 0.738). Occlusoproximal restorations had lower survival rate when compared to occlusal ones (HR = 3.83; p < 0.001).
conclusionsThe survival rate in primary molars is not influenced by the different supply forms of GIC. Also, occlusoproximal restorations present reduced performances when compared to occlusal cavities.
trial registrationThis randomized clinical trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.Gov on 10/15/2014 under protocol (NCT02274142).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.